Beatle Myths and Legends 1 – Sid Bernstein Addendum

EXCEPT:

Sid Bernstein

I, personally remember standing in the shower of a house we lived in for only a few months in winter of 1963 and wondering how this British fad my then husband told me about spelled and/or pronounced their odd name: “Beatles” or “Beetles”. I heard about Fluxis from him as well and I assumed at the time he’d learned of both from some publication available at the Peabody College Art Department.

So, does anyone have a clue what Sid Bernstein and John Kavich read in Feburary, 1963 that mentioned The Beatles?

Beatle Myths and Legends 1 – Sid Bernstein

Most of us know the story about Bernstein taking a class in the winter of 1963 that required him to read an English newspaper once a week. From these papers he learned about the rise of Beatlemania in Britain and he decided to promote a concert for them in the US. In February of 63 he got in touch with Brian Epstein and they informally contracted for two concerts at Carnegie Hall for Feb. 12, 1964.

It’s a lovely story but it’s unlikely to the point of impossibility. In Feb. of 63 the Beatles issued their second single, Please Please Me which went to the top of most of the British charts. Later that month they recorded 10 songs in less then 10 hours for their first album. Certainly the music press did carry notices of the song reaching the charts and no doubt the Liverpool Echo carried some sort of story about ‘home town boys make good,’ as well as Tony Barrow’s Disker column. Was Bernstein reading the British music press? (Were these specialist newspapers available on New York newsstands?) Could he have read a copy of the Liverpool Echo or the Manchester Guardian which probably carried some sort of story about girls mobbing the Beatles after they recorded a TV appearance there? Was he reading Mersey Beat? :(sarcasm alert)

Certainly he did NOT read any newspaper about “Beatlemania” as he claims because the word wasn’t invented until the first stories appeared in the “National press,” in effect the London dailies, until October 14, 1963 reporting on the crowd of fans outside the London Palladium the night before when the Beatles appeared on the British equivalent of the Ed Sullivan show.

The bottom line is that no matter what newspapers Sid read in Feb. 1963, he did NOT read about Beatlemania until the middle of October. I consider it rather unlikely that he read newspapers from a variety of English cities and towns in January and February of that year and if he had, there really wasn’t much written about the Beatles until a good bit later in the year. He may have kept up with the British pop charts in which case there wasn’t much to notice about the Beatles at least until their first album and third single came out later in the spring and rather quickly made an indisputable #1.

Because of London’s prejudice against the North of England and the “odd” fact that until the Palladium show somehow the Beatles didn’t play any real London venues on their tours, the national press didn’t know them and didn’t want to know them. It took months for Dezo Hoffman to talk his paper into sending him to Liverpool to take pictures of them as it did Maureen Cleve to get an assignment to write about the group. Certainly Tony Barrow had been trying, with virtually no success, to get stories in both the London papers and the national music press. It took a gathering of young people numbering something between 8 and 800 depending on who is talking to get the press’ attention – and a slow, Sunday news night.

The question is just what newspapers was Sid reading in January and February of 1963 that convinced him that the Beatles were making a big splash in England and that it would be a major coup to be the first to bring them to America. The answer is that there is no paper he could have been reading that would tell him anything much at all about the Beatles at that time. This is only one of the widely accepted Beatle stories that a look at a calendar will call into serious question.

Concert in Atlanta

I attended Paul’s concert in Piedmont Park, Atlanta, GA last night via the cell phone of a friend who had volunteered to help in setting up the park for the concert. The volunteers were given special passes to the show and I asked him to let me “attend” the concert briefly through his phone. My thought when word of the concert first came out that it would be cool to just be somewhere around the edge of the park to overhear it — but Atlanta is a couple hundred miles away and doing that sort of thing in a wheel chair means a lot of effort particularly for whoever is pushing the chair.

My friend was pleased at the idea. I mentioned it on one of the McCartney mail lists and Steve Marinucci read it and asked if I would let him publish my report in his Examiner column. So if you want to read about my concert experience as I “live blogged” it, visit his column at http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Paul-McCartney-Atlanta-report-1–concert-report–by-phone

I had a wonderful time and still have a contact high from it.

Paul in Atlanta

Reviews — Again

I just finished reading The Beatles; Off the Record by Keith Badman and I recommend it heartily to serious Beatle students. There’s quite a lot there that I haven’t found elsewhere. One thing I like is that he gives the questions and answers before and after bits that have been quoted by everybody and frequently it puts a different spin on it then it had when presented as a stand-alone. It’s a ‘heavy’ read in both length and information content and also has some very nice photos that you don’t see everywhere.

I thoroughly enjoyed a page-plus on the Mad Day Out photo session. They were/are interesting photos and the commentary from one of the photographers involved was interesting. There’s simply too much in the book to light on specifics and each of us will find diffferent things to be delighted with in any case.

I also recently got the DVD Composing the Beatles Songbook http://www.blastmagazine.net/dvd%27s/dvd%20reviews/composingthebeatlessongbook.html

They picked a dozen people, mostly musical folks and discussed John and Paul as composers. I have really fallen in love with it. I’ve played it twice, paying very close attention each time and I expect to watch it several times more. One thing that really turned me on is that one of the participants, Chris Ingham (musicologist, author, Beatles Academic) chose to really look at For No One, a Paul song that I had some time ago identified as an extremely insightful and serious song that has been completely overlooked.

You may not agree with everything on it, I certainly don’t but it does really add to an understanding of the music.

I apologize yet again. It’s obvious that I’m not going to be able to post regularly. This time it was health, family concerns and computer complications. The computer problems seem to be completely solved — at least as much as such are ever solved — and hopefully that will help keep the other things from having such a negative effect on my work.

The Beatles Comedy

”Rabbi Winkler wrote: The Zohar says “There is no wisdom as wholesome as that wisdom that comes out of silliness. Never stay up on the barren heights of cleverness, but come down into the green valleys of silliness.”

What they did best was nuttyness, a distinction without a difference perhaps. I have seen Yellow Submarine (in the theater at the time of its release so I don’t remember all that much!). I remember an early “music video” in which The Beatles are playing leapfrog over a well-dressed gentleman leaning over something on the sidewalk. It has no particular meaning but it’s amusing as is their capering on an anonymous beach in striped vintage bathing dress. These had nothing whatsoever to do with the songs. But you watch it and you enjoy their enjoyment of what they are doing.

I have to suppose that outside of The Beatles’ natural style of wisecracking, the style of physical comedy demonstrated in the clips and movies may have been more the idea of Sir George Martin then anyone else. Martin was the head of the Parlophone record label who offered The Beatles a recording contract after they had been turned down by just about everyone else. Although he was a trained musician (piano, oboe), he went to work for EMI record company, where he recorded such comedians as Peter Sellers and Spike Mulligan. Sellers as well as a very broad assortment of music from light pop to symphonic. I know he did a good bit of intellectual comedy but also indulged in what I call “romps”; a special way of handling mostly physical comedy without much attention to plot, continuity or, indeed, story at all.

The Beatles at that time were barely older then schoolboys and you can see in A Hard Days Night comedy recalling a kid grabbing someone’s hat and playing keep-away. Adolescent boy fun is funny, so long as it’s not your cap! Added in was as lovely a Keystone Cops sequence as anyone’s ever seen and Ringo’s threnody on the canal is way beyond criticism. Was Ringo consciously playing the Little Tramp? He says he was so hung over that morning that merely walking took all his time so I can suppose it was simply one of those miracles

]Not that The Beatles film depends on either physical comedy or on adolescent boy fun, the writing in some places in A Hard Days Night is delicious. John’s conversation with the plump lady in the hall wherein the “him” John does or doesn’t look like is left undefined is surely a triumph of underwriting – so terribly hard to do! However, it took the eye of an artist (or a really good cameraman) to see the possibilities of 4 skinny young men in black clothes romping in a mowed field. Is it funny? Not exactly; but it makes you feel good and feel good about the actors.

It’s very amusing to read the slightly offended surprise of the movie critics reviews. (Both in the original release and the more recent re-release to theaters.) While some of the sources say that the script was carefully written to be easy for inexperienced non-actors, Ringo’s “hiding behind a smokescreen of bourgeois clichés” isn’t my idea of an easy line! I have seen the I Am the Walrus cut in Magic Mystery Tour and it lacks the spontaneity and fun which are not entirely absent from the rest of the piece. It seems to me that there was too much self-consciousness and an attempt to get some sort of message across. I do find the lyrics of Walrus over studied and artificial. I feel sure that Ringo is right in that by broadcasting it in black and white the BBC ensured it’s critical disaster. On the other hand, the particular magic that made The Beatles is beginning to fail because the group is beginning to fail to be a group. Even in Sgt. Pepper you can see that there’s a bit of a hitch in their interpersonal harmony. It comes back here and there but many of the clips show three bored session musicians trying to get the ‘great one’ through one last take.

The Beatles comedy at its best a combination of innocent fun and sophisticated badinage that transport the viewer to the world of everyone’s dreams, one which never existed. I find reviews that name it as archtypical of its time and yet it survives to this time and people without my memories enjoy it now.

Defining Rock

Tim Ripley, Ask Me Why, said Rock is typified by “more adult themes: isolation, despair, alienation, loss and the positive correlations of peace, communication, self-worth, vision and hope.” Note that the “positives” contain only unemotional hope type while the first mentioned qualities, the important ones, are all emotion. Nowhere is happiness, content, love triumphant, friendship mentioned. Misery is the only legitimate truth. Rock & Roll is adequately defined by the “jury” of Juke Box Jury in Britain and Dick Clarks American Bandstand in the US: “it’s got a beat and you can dance to it.” I looked all over the web, Wikkipedia to Rolling Stone Magazine and nowhere did I find anything approaching a definitive definition. Ian MacDonald, Revolution in the Head, opines that Rock concentrates of feel and beat rather then on music. That Rock is laid-back while “pop” tries to catch a moment, story, or feeling. Later (p. 206) he says the difference between pop at its best and Rock is well-crafted music.” Take that, Hoagie Carmichael, Bert Bacrack!! Most of the books aggressively name John Lennon as a master of Rock, primarily because of his tendency to wallow in misery and this in many ways probably set the preoccupation of Rock with the negative emotions. Rock critics celebrate John’s emotionality even when they imagine most of it and somehow find something to love in George3’s insecurity, status as lead guitar or soloist. Paul’s skill and competence playing and singing however is seen as insecurity and unfair to John and Georges perceived insecurities. Riley claims that Paul’s universality is a sin in Rock as Rock people aren’t like everybody else. Rock is said to be marked by something they call “texture” although I can’t imagine any music that lacked it. I have read that Rock specifically sets “listening pleasure” out of consideration in favor of commiting to the idea that if you enjoy it as music it’s not Rock. I do understand that everyone who writes professionally about the Beatles or abut Rock needs a to stay in with the Rock press but that knowledge doesn’t quite make me forgive MacDonald, Riles and all the others for crumbling before those prejudices. John would no doubt have been discarded from the Rock mainstream for Double Fantasy had he not been killed before they got into print. If any singer/composer sinned against the Rock rules, Double Fantasy is the album in evidence. If you have suggestions for refining a definition of “Rock” I’d be grateful if you’d share it with me. [Sorry for the delay, I haven’t been well and only got my computer problems lessoned a couple days ago.]

Comments on/ from books

To me the most shocking thing about the first person books about the Beatles is that almost all (except George Martin and Geoff Emerick) ignore the music completely. Peter Brown, Tony Bramwell, Tony Barrow, Allan Williams, Bill Harry, Mike McCartney, Alistair Taylor, etc. and even Pete Best hardly mention it and if they do, it only the first 3 or 4 hits. Not one of them seem to have cared at all what the Beatles wrote or recorded so long as it hit the top of the charts. It appears to me that virtually everyone whose salaries the Beatles paid (all of NEMS as well as all of Apple) neither enjoyed nor understood the music.

They were all hooked on the mania and their soft jobs. Few of them ever saw the Beatles as persons nor were actively concerned for them. From Liverpool or the far ends of the earth, they all were concentrated on milking their cash cow with little thought of what the cow wanted or needed. No wonder Klein looked good and no wonder Paul stuck to an in-law to manage his career and money.

“…confused with its naïvely anarchistic bourgeois cousin, rock journalism.”  From Clayson, I think. My own thoughts are somewhat less printable.

Odd question: With all the fuss about a not-red rose/carnation and bare feet why have I read no speculation about why George rides a dark horse (giggle) in the Penny Lane video when the others ride white ones? “they rode their white horses out through an archway in a ruined wall,” From Lewisohn’s Chronicles – and he’s usually more careful!

Will the Real Penny Lane Please Stand Up?

I have been reading and interesting Beatles website: http://beatlesite.blogspot.com

When I got to the review of Paul’s Penny Lane the reviewer comments that he finds it too sweet. He goes on to say that if Paul had written in a little darkness it might have thrown all the sunlight into sharp relief and given the song a little more punch.  May I remind him and you that Paul has mentioned that the song is surreal.  One of the main keys to understanding surrealism is to remember that what you see (or to hear) is not all that is there. A trout can look like a monk and an apple becomes part of a simple gambling game.

We must assume that Penny Lane contains more than a charming suburban street. While John’s lyrics can containe implied meanings and portamento words requiring you to think through what he is saying, many of Paul’s best lyrics are very dense.  We can see Eleanor Rigby and Father McKensey; we know what they look like and how they live.  In Penny Lane the pictures are even clearer.  In fact that clarity I suspect is what makes it difficult to penetrate the shiny surface and see Paul’s surrealistic picture beneath it.

That first character introduced is the banker who refuses to wear a raincoat thus causing children to laugh at him.  I’m not sure what is so funny about not wearing a raincoat but in the late ’60s raincoats became associated with a passtime known as “Streaking”.  In other words our dignified banker discards his raincoat and goes flying down Penny Lane stark naked–surely enough to make the children laugh particularly as we suspect .. well nevermind.

The barber is quite easy.  One sees him as slightly camp and gesturing with his shiny steel scissors while in the window one see heads without bodies–severed and impaled.

The chorus of course is lovely but when pray tell me did Liverpool present present its citizens with blue skies?

It’s easy to see that the firemen is just a trifle strange with his picture of the Queen and obsession with “A clean machine. ” The nurse for me as rather Delta Dawn figure dressed perhaps in a World War one uniform humming to herself waiting for her young man with a mustache to return.

Not quite thin blue suburban sky anymore because just as in real life beneath the sunny surface lie human beings in all their strange variety.

Set List for Paul’s New Tour!!

Actually I certainly do not mean to tell Paul what he should do particularly since I’m unlikely to be able to attend any of his concerts. I might buy the video though so I’ll make some suggestions just in case he’s interested in suggestions from fans.

I do not say that these are in appropriate order!

Things We Said Today
For No ONe
Why Don’t We Do It In The Road
Two Of Us
Ram On
Monkberry Moon Delight
Sing Along Junk
Hope of Deliverance
Off The Ground
Songs We Were Singing
Picasso’s Last Words
Feet In The Clouds
How Kind Of You
If You Wanna
Pipes Of Peace
The World Tonight
Penny Lane
London Town

Beatle Books I Recommend

If you are looking for a book about the Beatles because of a realization of what great music they made, begin with A Day In The Life by Mark Hartsgaard. It focuses on the music but covers enough of the life of the group to satisfy a moderate interest. The author carefully documents his facts and if he puts more trust in certain biographers then I do, well it’s a matter of opinion isn’t it? His commentary on the music is concise, readable for the non-musically educated and betrays less favoritism for one or another member of the band then most.

If you want to know more about the individuals who were members of the Beatles – but not ever possible obscure detail, read The Beatles by Hunter Davies. This is a well-written book with an added forward if you end up with one of the later editions (It was first published in 1968).  It is an authorized biography and Davies had a good deal of access to all four Beatles and most of the people around them. It was edited, in a few cases heavily, by the Beatles and/or some of their relatives (as explained in the commentary to the revised edition.)

During the live of the band, and for some years after, some facts about their beginnings, particularly details about John’s family, were deliberately suppressed. Given the world of 1963 this was an appropriate decision. Davies book reflects most of these limitation although there are some hints for the attentive reader.

For those who want nothing but the facts and all of the facts I recommend Mark Spitz The Beatles. Unless you are willing to wait for Mark Lewishon’s 3-volume history (2010 – 2020) this is about the best you can do. It is far from perfect but of those available, it’s certainly one of the best. It’s complete with 100 pages of footnotes, which I note the reviewers found quite impressive. Unfortunately, a fair number of debatable issues do not have any footnote and a large proportion of the footnotes are quite trivial.

If you are curious about what happened to John, Paul, George and Ringo after the Beatles broke up, the situation isn’t too good. The supposedly best bio of John is not only nearly as big as the Spitz book, it’s pointedly avocatory. Ray Coleman was a reporter who covered the Beatles during their popularity and he is very sympathetic to John’s point of view. I’m willing to take his word for objective facts but his focus is always as Lennon’s friend.

I think the best book on Paul is Barry Miles Many Years From Now although it does not give you much on Paul’s post-Beatles career. It focuses on the things Paul was doing besides being a Beatle and is written by someone who was there and a friend. Howard Elson’s McCartney, Songwriter, is the best of the books I’ve read that includes Paul’s post-Beatle career although it was written and published in 86 and therefore a good bit isn’t there.

I haven’t found a good book on either George or Ringo. The books I’ve read that attempt to follow all four of them after the breakup are extremely sketchy. I have to say that you’ll probably get more out of a study of their official websites and the better of the fan websites.